Silence is dangerous: bitter political environment forces businesses to take stand on social issues

Remember how the companies who campaigned for the "yes" vote were labelled "corporate fascists"? Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce, the softly spoken Irishman running our national airliner, was the first to put on his jackboots.

He proudly used the Qantas brand to campaign for same-sex marriage, and was subjected to much criticism for it.

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton told Joyce to "stick to his knitting" – advice Dutton doesn't heed himself – he is perfectly happy to freelance outside his own portfolio.

In May, before Dutton crafted the postal survey solution adopted by Malcolm Turnbull, 20 of Australia's top chief executives wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to deliver civil marriage equality.

Advertisement

Alan Joyce and his partner celebrate the "yes" campaign's win at a picnic in Sydney on Wednesday.Credit:AAP

Dutton was apoplectic.

He said the letter was "bizarre" and that chief executives should "stop shoving politically correct nonsense down our throats".

"The CEOs would be better off out there arguing ... for the economy to be run in a particular way or for tax to be reformed ... so that people grow their businesses and grow jobs as opposed to taking on these moral causes," he said at the time.

Dutton was full of free professional advice for business leaders. He told Sydney's 2GB radio that Telstra chief executive Andrew Penn should focus on his core services, "instead of getting caught up and spending your investors' money ... on all these political causes, what about tidying up your own backyard first and providing a proper standard of care and service to your customers?"

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has criticised companies speaking out on social issues.Credit:Andrew Meares

Resources Minister and "no" campaigner Matt Canavan told the ABC: "What I find a little uncomfortable this week with the position of CEOs is almost a level of contempt for those who might have a different view."

Telling company chief executives what they should and shouldn't talk about publicly seems an odd position given the "no" supporters' apparent concerns for freedom of speech.

Joyce, and other chief executives, clearly believe there is a place for corporations to contribute to values-based public debates, which seems perfectly reasonable, even if only on the basis that the top 20 companies employ tens of thousands of people, to whom they owe some moral responsibility.

Joyce said that "a huge amount of energy and productivity was lost" when LGBTQI people were unable to be themselves at work.

Such lost productivity would be difficult to quantify in a line item on a company report, but we know that national productivity is adversely affected by individuals' poor mental health, and we know that poor mental health is correlated with being gay or transgender.

Joyce also argued there was a business case for companies speaking out on social issues because increasing numbers of shareholders looked at "environmental, social and governance issues" as a reason to invest in companies.

This is true, but companies like Qantas are unlikely to support social causes unless they have already reached a groundswell of popularity, and have become safe bandwagons on which to jump.

This is why the corporate support for SSM was so telling – the business community had read the public mood much better than politicians had.

Now that the same-sex marriage debate is over, with its unprecedented levels of support (or interference) from corporate Australia, will businesses go back to their knitting? Or will they continue to back progressive causes?

When it comes to climate change and investment in fossil fuel companies, increasingly companies are moving ahead of government.

They've had to, and not for fuzzy reasons to do with corporate social responsibility, or public relations.

In a political environment that is increasingly bitter, partisan, dominated by culture wars and generally unconducive to good policy outcomes, business has to look after itself and move towards clean energy investments.

Dutton should be happy – this is very much a case of business sticking to its knitting by protecting shareholders against carbon risk.

The most high-profile example of this is the refusal by any of the big four banks to finance the Adani mine in Queensland.

Canavan singled out Westpac for criticism over this, and urged Queenslanders to take their business elsewhere – an extraordinary thing for any minister to do.

This week Commbank chairwoman Catherine Livingstone said her bank's funding for coal investments was small and declining, and "we expect that trend to continue over time as we help finance the transition to a low-carbon economy".

And on Monday, Medibank, one of the country's biggest health insurers, announced to the ASX it would transition over the next year to low-carbon investments in its international portfolio.

A company statement said "we understand that the health of the environment has an impact on the health of the community", and that "we also recognise our role as a corporate citizen, and the increasing expectations the community has of corporate Australia".

The certainties of neo-liberalism have been crumbling since the global financial crisis, and public suspicion of large corporate institutions has risen in concert with a loss of faith in centrist politics-as-usual.

Corporations need to fashion themselves as authentic and socially conscious or consumers and shareholders won't back them.

Corporate silence on big social issues like gay marriage, the domestic violence epidemic, the gender pay gap, or Indigenous constitutional recognition is increasingly seen as proof that capitalist institutions are faceless and expedient.

This in itself is a corporate risk – the sort of sentiment likely to build voter support for a royal commission into the banks, for example.

The likes of Canavan and Dutton may despise it, but companies will continue to intervene in social and political debates.

Far from corporate fascism, it's corporate pragmatism.

Something of which conservative politicians should thoroughly approve.